From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-11-11T03:27:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Golf, anyone?

<quote>
I found that this this did NOT extend down
the inheritance chain for those objects, though. I was forced to
override the inherrited method on the initial object so I could place
the 'properties' definition in each subclass. This is my least favorite
part of my solution.
</quote>

Your view is far from uncommon. Have a look at:

  http://www.rcrchive.net/rcr/show/325

Also, there seems to be a bit some difficulty between what you state
you want and the example you present. You say:

  If another class includes the module, it should have its own class
variable and accessor.

But your exmaple has it that a subclass will share the same @prop (Ie.
Baz -> Bar). Which appreantly is why you added the superclass call.
(Notice also that Robert's example doesn't handle this). So I'm
wondering which you really want. Basically you asking two different
things: Standard module method inheritance (which has independent class
instance vars) or Or module method inheritance with addtioanl class
variable inheritance.

In either case here are possiblities using Facets. Method inheritance:

  include 'facet/class_inherit'

  module Foo
    class_inherit do
      def prop
        @prop ||= []
      end
    end
  end

or with variable inheritance:

  include 'facet/inheritor'

  module Foo
    inheritor :prop, [], :+
  end

Note this last example requires the use of bang method add to the
array, eg.

  a.prop! << 'p1"

T.